Saturday, June 29, 2013

Adding Some Important Clarifications to the SBC Statement on Calvinism

The recent SBC statement rightly affirms God's love for all people and His desire for all to be saved. Roger Olson has suggested that Calvinists should be required to explain these statements further, and that it might be disingenuous for them to sign the statement without elaborating (See here, here and here).

To demonstrate the point, he proposed that a coalition of Calvinists, Classical Arminians and Open Theists ought to be challenged to sign the following, without qualification, and wondered if any would be willing to do so:

“We affirm that God loves everyone and desires everyone to be saved and that God elects some to salvation and that people do not have free will to decide whether or not to be saved and that God knows the future exhaustively and infallibly.”

I could never sign that in good conscience because it denies human freedom/responsibility.

However, I agree that more should be said by Calvinists and Arminians about God's love for all people and His desire for the salvation of all. I chose (of my own free will) to add the following comment to Dr. Olson's third post on this subject, including some proposed clarifications to be made from both sides. This will really prove a point:

Dr. Olson,

I am glad you are discussing the SBC statement.

I doubt ANYONE would sign your proposed statement (of course, you already knew that). I, as a Calvinist, would object to the denial of freedom, but not to the affirmation of God's general love and desire for the salvation of the lost.

With regard the actual SBC statement, I agree that more could (and probably should) be said about God's love for everyone and His desire for everyone to be saved.

If I had my way, Calvinists would have to explain further by stating: "We affirm that God loves all people in the sense that He freely gives them life and breath, reveals Himself to them, provides every good thing they experience, withholds patiently for a time their just and well-deserved punishment for sin, extends His open hand of salvation to them, and calls them to Gospel repentance; and that He desires the salvation of all people in the sense that He would delight in saving all, and will never turn away anyone who turns to Him; and that this sincere love and desire on God's part do not result in the salvation of all people because many freely choose to reject Him in spite of such kindness."

And Arminians would have to state, "We affirm that God loves all people in the sense that He freely gives them life and breath, reveals Himself to them, provides every good thing they experience, withholds patiently for a time their just and well-deserved punishment for sin, extends His open hand of salvation to them, and calls them to Gospel repentance; and that He desires the salvation of all people in the sense that He would delight in saving all, and will never turn away anyone who turns to Him; and that this sincere love and desire on God's part do not result in the salvation of all people because many freely choose to reject Him in spite of such kindness."

This could be followed up with, "Both Calvinists and Arminians agree on these points."

6 comments:

Hello Derek, I don't believe that a full 5-Point Calvinist could sign a statement which includes: "He would delight in saving all," since 5-Point Calvinism insists that Jesus did not die for all men, and though His atonement would otherwise be "sufficient" to save all men, God purposely did not Monergistically "apply" the Atonement to all men. So I'd have to say that only a 4-Point Calvinist could sign your statement in good faith. (I'm well aware of the "sufficient for all, efficient only for the elect" stance, and am presently discussing the matter on Facebook.)

My dear brother in Law is a Calvinist, and he seems to talk like a 4-Pointer, but wishes to be labeled at a 5-Pointer. But why? Why not just get of the 5th point? I surmise that his peers would otherwise deem him, "not truly Reformed," that ever-dreaded phrase. Instead, he maintains the 5th point, while talking every bit like a 4-Pointer. Can you explain why 4-Pointers are hiding in the closet, so to speak?

The statement that God "would delight in saving all" is simply a reflection of His good nature. He does not delight in the death of the wicked, but calls all people everywhere to repent. If the reprobate turned to Him, it would be His joy to rescue the reprobate because He loves to save sinners. The fact that God allows many to perish does not detract from the delight He would take in their salvation, if He saved them.

Regarding Limited Atonement, it seems to me that the subject is full of misapprehensions. Many who call themselves "4-point" Calvinists do not actually reject the most critical component that is non-negotiable for all Calvinists: that God in the atonement purposes to save the elect in particular. The mistake of the High Calvinist is conflating this purpose of the atonement (which is consistent with election) with the POWER of the atonement (which is consistent with God's general love for all people). I used to call myself a 4-pointer, but then came to realize through a study of history (especially of the Puritans) that the debate today is confused. When I realized that I stand in line with a great many well-known Calvinists in affirming a limited intent but not a limited extent, and that this position historically aligns with a stream of Calvinists who recognize the doctrine of Particular Redemption, I stopped calling myself a 4-pointer and suddenly recognized myself as a genuine 5-point Calvinist. Not that the number of points really matter so much, anyway. The main point (pun intended) is to be Biblically balanced, which is how I became a full 10-point Calvinist (I am pretty sure Calvin was one also!).

Thank you for stopping by, and thank you for your important question. This gets to the heart of the reason I started writing this blog several years ago, and it is an essential question particularly for Calvinists. Rather than re-invent the wheel, I am going to point to the excellent handling of this question by a capable commentator in the following short article: http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/40613

In the article, Joseph Nally summarizes the matter this way: "... we should understand that in some sense God does not delight in the death of the wicked (Ezekiel passages), but in another sense, to satisfy his justice, he does. ... this is not contradictory but complimentary."

When we have done thorough exegesis, having carefully studied the Scriptures in their context, and we find ourselves facing a Biblical paradox, we must acknowledge that there are different senses behind the words. We should resist the temptation to create false dichotomies, such as, "God either desires or does not desire the salvation of the reprobate. It has to be one or the other, and can't possibly be both." We especially cannot allow those false dichotomies to drive our interpretations of Scripture. Biblically, it would seem more consistent to say, "God in some sense desires to save even the reprobate, and in another sense desires not to save them. What an amazing God He is! How unsearchable are His ways! How compassionate is His heart! How wise and prudent are His holy counsels! Not surprisingly, I don't fully grasp His ways -- yet I firmly trust in His Word and all that it teaches me about Him. I want to know Him more!" Then we continue to study the Scriptures and pray fervently, seeking more light.

Beyond this, if we are of a philosophical bent, we might attempt to explain the senses in which the seemingly contradictory statements are true. This is okay, and can sometimes be helpful. However, let us embark on that kind of speculation only with great carefulness and caution, never placing too much weight on our own theories or surmisings.

Unfortunately, some Calvinists have refused to embrace Biblical paradoxes, avoided the humbling and difficult work of sorting through the senses, and accordingly misinterpreted clear statements of Scripture using twisted exegesis -- all in an unnecessary effort to appear "consistent." They would have done better to recognize that being consistent with the Bible is our first and highest priority, much more important than explaining everything in a supposedly "logically consistent" fashion (according to the judgment of man). We should not elevate human reason above the Word of God in this manner; rather, we should soberly submit our judgment to the Bible, and reason with the Scriptures to gain understanding.

We do not fully comprehend God's ways, as Job 26:14 reminds us:Behold, these are but the outskirts of his ways,and how small a whisper do we hear of him!But the thunder of his power who can understand?”

While it may rightly be pointed out that some of Job's theology was skewed, this particular statement only seems to be reinforced by God in His answer at the end of the book, and it is also strongly restated in Job's final comments:

Then Job answered the Lord and said: “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. ‘Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?’ Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. ‘Hear, and I will speak; I will question you, and you make it known to me.’ I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; therefore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:1-6)

The more Job learned of God, the more he realized God was beyond His understanding.

Thus, we are called to hold in proper balance the perspicuity of Scripture, the incomprehensibility of God, the valid use of reason and logic, the noetic effects of sin, the limited scope of divine revelation, and the absolute certainty of our faith and hope in those things which are revealed. It is a lack of faith that leads us to rely too much or too little on logic. It is a lack of faith that leads us either to demand too much certainty concerning things not revealed, or to remain uncertain concerning things that are revealed. It is a lack of faith that leads us to overlook our human limitations, and to believe that we have logical powers sufficient to create a certainty by our own reasoning that is equivalent to the certainty found only in the Word. Only God, by His amazing grace, can save us from these many pitfalls. Since we so easily fall into them, we must be vigilant and prayerful!

Feel free to respond to anything written in the posts, or to the comments left by others. All comments are reviewed before they are published.

Please be charitable. If you disagree, do so with grace. Keep your words positive, focused, and on-topic. We don't expect everyone to agree, but we do expect everyone to treat everyone else with respect and grace, speaking the truth in love.

About the THEOparadox Team

Derek Ashton,Founder:I know enough about myself to be completely amazed that God loves me. His grace toward me has been abundant and overwhelming. I thank Him that I've been married to my beautiful bride since 1996. I have the privilege of raising two wonderful children who are gifts from God. (Read my testimony here).

Emeritus Team Members:Tony Hayling:Learn more about Tony at his site, Agonizomai.

THEOparadox MISSION Statement:

~To honor God by upholding the authority, inerrancy and sufficiency of His Word, the Bible.~To help students of the Word to interpret Biblical paradoxes in a way that faithfully reflects God's heart.~To ignite a devotional flame that will help believers to warm up their theology and burn up their pride.~To encourage Christian faith by resolving or explaining apparent contradictions in the Scriptures.~To explore the nature and extent of paradoxes in historically orthodox, Reformed, Biblical theology.

~To provide Biblical resources for those who desire to know God and His Word better.

~To glorify the Lord Jesus Christ, the Friend of sinners and the Savior of the lost.

Feature Series

Theology Meets Geometry

Rules

Feel free to respond to anything written in the posts, or to the comments left by others.

Please be charitable. If you disagree, do so with grace. Keep your words positive, focused, and on-topic. We don't expect everyone to agree, but we do expect everyone to treat everyone else with respect and grace, speaking the truth in love.

Thanks!Mgmt.

Followers

"Heresy is born whenever the Church fails to pray a tension."

"Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism both result from the same problem: A tension-deficient disorder."

"Human beings are incredibly good over-compensators."

What is a PARADOX?

A tenet or proposition contrary to received opinion, or seemingly absurd, yet true in fact.

Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828 Edition

"... it is synonymous with apparent contradiction. A 'paradox' thus amounts to a set of claims which taken in conjunction appear to be logically inconsistent. Note that according to this definition, paradoxicality does not entail logical inconsistency per se, but merely the appearance of logical inconsistency."

James Anderson, Paradox in Christian Theology

Wise Words ...

"The juxtaposition of words and ideas that don't usually go together make the real point stand out for us more clearly. And some truths in the Christian life are best expressed as oxymorons - paradoxical language."

~Phil Johnson

Wise Words . . .

"By advocating paradox I don't want to give the impression that I'm giving a carte blanche to not think philosophically, to not think deeply, about these doctrines. Quite the opposite. . . . My position is that with each of these doctrines we reflect on them as hard as we can, we penetrate them as best we can based on the Scriptural data that we do have, but we also recognize that there are going to be limits, and that those limits are actually a positive thing and not a reflection of some inherent problem in the doctrines or in the process of theological reflection. . . . I think we can make progress, we can make

considerable progress, in understanding these doctrines and resolving some of the . . . initial difficulties that we have with them, but at the same time recognizing that we're always only going to get so far and when we bump up against the limits of our capacity to formulate them in certain ways or to resolve certain difficulties in them, we

shouldn't be too concerned about that. We certainly shouldn't say, 'Okay, we need to admit that Christians are ultimately irrationalists.' No. We don't need to say that at all. . . . It's a Biblically constrained rationality. It's a middle way between rationalism, of which I think [Gordon H.] Clark was a representative, and irrationalism, of which, to take an example I think the Neo-Orthodox - Karl Barth - would be an example, where you're saying that there are actual contradictions in there. So I think it's navigating a Biblical middle way between these two extremes: having too high a view of the human intellect, and perhaps too low a view of the intellect, of our ability to know the things

of God."

~Dr. James Anderson

Subscribe To THEOparadox

The Gospel

God lovingly sacrificed His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, for a depraved and law-breaking humanity's only way to be saved from His just wrath, and through His death and resurrection graciously sanctified and secured forever all those who believe on Him - for their ultimate good and His eternal glory.

The following quotation was found in a recent post on a popular Arminian blog . It is by James Arminius, the founder of Arminianism, and pur...

Theological Paradoxes

Below I have listed some of the classic theological paradoxes (and a few interesting ironies, too) . . .

~The Trinity- God is One being revealed in three distinct persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)~God is transcendent(separate from His creation) yet immanent(in His creation)~Omnipresence- God is always present everywhere, yet He sometimes speaks of Himself as "present" in a special way~The Incarnation- God became a man~The Virgin Birth - A Jewish virgin gave birth to the Son of God~The Two Natures of Christ - Jesus is fully (100%) God and fully (100%) man

~The Atonement is sufficient to save every person, but efficient only for those who believe~God is completely sovereign (in control of everything, everywhere, all the time) yet He is not the author of sin and he uses human choice to accomplish His purposes~Inspiration of Scripture - The Bible was written by sinful human beings yet it is the inerrant and flawless Word of God~Divine Revelation - Sinful man cannot comprehend God, yet God reveals Himself to sinful man~Sanctification- Christians are sinners by nature, but saints by grace~Suffering- God brings His joy and comfort into our lives through our experiences of pain, disappointment and suffering

There are many others. Paradox is everywhere when we attempt to understand God's ways in a genuinely Biblical way.

Thank You for Visiting Theoparadox

The Apostles' Creed

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,Born of the virgin Mary,Suffered under Pontius Pilate,Was Crucified, dead and buried

He descended into Hades;The third day He rose again from the dead;He ascended into heaven,and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty

From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.I believe in the Holy Spirit,The holy catholic (i.e., universal) Church,The communion of saints;the forgiveness of sins;the resurrection of the body;and the life everlasting. Amen